PropertyTaxReform

Private (homeowner) Associations, their Private Beaches, and the Local Assessor

I live in a small city within easy commuting distance of New York City.  It includes some lovely waterfront communities (with property values to match), a downtown with many corporations, a 1- and 2-acre zone, neighborhoods that include children who collectively speak 30 or more different languages and many whose families live below the "self-sufficiency level", multiple high schools, a few magnet schools.

There are a number of subdivisions which have some common property, and it turns out that the local assessor has been very generous with them.  Is this legitimate, or is it a privilege (private law, for the benefit of a few at the expense of the rest of the community)?   I can't see how it is anything but a privilege, a free lunch for special people. (To which I say, eschew privilege!!)

I'll start with the waterfront communities.  There are several of them.  Within one, there are are several private associations.  No gates, no signs, except the "no trespassing" signs on their private beaches; other than the beach signs and the real estate ads, which invariably mention "deeded beach rights," they don't seem any different from other streets on their peninsula.  But each of the three sub-neighborhoods has some private property on the waterfront.   

Redirecting Sprawl

The Hartford Courant published an editorial yesterday entitled "Let's Redirect Sprawl."  The title is taken from a statement by Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell.

The editorial says, in part,

Advocates for smart growth often cite the need for "infill development." But "redirect sprawl" gets the message across better. One of the aspects of smart growth that is sometimes forgotten is — growth. To redirect sprawl is emphatically to keep growing, but in places that don't waste energy, add to traffic congestion or ruin the view.

How do we do this?  The editorial doesn't say.  It does mention the underused land in our cities:

That should be part of a strong and focused effort to redirect sprawl to the empty and underused sites that pockmark nearly all of our urban areas. The central part of Hartford, for example, has acres of land that is severely underused as surface parking.  

It usually does cost more to build in town centers and transit corridors. But it is the right thing to do. If we rebuild cities to a healthy urban density, we won't have to drive as much, and thus will save energy and cause less pollution. Cities will be safer and more walkable. There will be less pressure to develop the last of our farms.

"People want to live in cities, if you do it right," Mr. Rendell said.

This ought to be the next phase of the smart-growth movement in Connecticut, and Mr. Rendell may have provided the catchphrase.

Assessments that favor the big landholders

It is apparently standard practice for assessors in some places to value large parcels of land very generously.  I'm not talking about special valuations for farms or forests (even if they are long-fallow and in areas where land sells for hundreds of thousands of dollars per acre).  Rather, I am talking about valuations which treat the portion of an owner's land beyond the minimum zoning size as if it were worth perhaps 10% of its real value.

This happens in fairly dense suburban neighborhoods and in places where much larger lots are the minimum.    

Connecticut: Downtown Sprawl, Property Assessments and Getting the Incentives Right

I live in small city within commuting distance of New York City. For the 32 years I've been here, there has been a 4.3 acre hole-in-the-ground within about 1/4 mile of the city's "100% location."  It is surrounded by a chain link fence, and bordered by a shopping mall, a hotel, some apartments and some office buildings.  It is within walking distance of a major railroad station and two interstate highway exits.   It is even identified in the city's assessment database as the hole in the ground.  It has weed trees and concrete-lined puddles.  I seem to recall that at least one person has drowned when their car ended up in deep water on the property.

When I moved here, the tallest building in town was 22 stories. Today, the tallest building is still that 22-story office building.  It sits a bit to the north of the geographic center of downtown.  We currently have under construction a 37-story luxury condo complex ... on 1/2 acre at the northwest corner of the downtown ... and a 39-story hotel and condo complex on 3 acres, solidly in the downtown area and close to the highway and railroad.